It’s rich vs poor at Copenhagen following yesterday’s leak of a draft document . Developing countries think the document sets unfair limits on per capita carbon emissions and hands over too much power to industrialised nations.
Is the industrial world passing the buck? Or should the poor stop hiding in the past to stop them from acting in the future?
Earlier in the week, China and the Group of 77 criticised the developed world for trying to “shift responsibility of addressing climate change and its adverse effects on developing countries.” China has lashed out specifically at the US for not doing enough to cut its carbon emissions.
India is reminding the world that it’s their turn to develop. ‘Let’s not forget, we are climate victims’ shouts this piece in the Times of India.
This editorial is calling for Africa to walk as one at Copenhagen or risk being sidelined.
Have a read of this piece in Ghana. They’re frustrated at the finger being pointed at Africa.
‘Africa, and for that matter Ghana probably do not contribute much to all these climate shenanigans. But funny enough, the biggest polluters seem to set their eyes on Africa and asking the continent to halt practices that affect our climate. Climate Change is not only an issue on energy and environment, it is also an issue of Justice and equity.’
Should developing nations do their part to combat climate change? Or is it their turn to industrialise?
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
it is an interesting point that i have advocated for months.Should countries like china,india , indonesia ,pakistan ,philipines and bangladesh continue to increae their populaiton unabated and use the population as a strength against the west to articulate polices unfairly when the west ahs been applying precautionary priciple of reducing population for more than 5 decades?
If china unfairly think that they have to develop and catch up with the west as has been doin g for more thana decade and be the world superpower interms of nuclear,army and indeed economy,why should the west foot the billfor full brunt of co2 reduction and let them continue to spew out co2 while the taxpayes of the west become poorer than an average chinese or indian a result?
Do they have a choice? Money, money,money, it’s so suny in the white man’s world. How ever much China and India pollutes the world it will never equal to what the west has done in the past and does even today. Inspite of the western scientists and their media claim. We all know which side of our bread is buttered. How much can anyone pollute on one dollar a day?
It goes to show that Copenhagen will turnout to what we fear it would. It’s now not so much about climate but politics and economic power or lack of them.
It appears to me that there are hidden issues that carry more clout than the issue of climate and that is what might render this summit irrelevant in the long run. It is not time for finger pointing but time to act and reverse the effect of climate change that will impact mankind negatively. We are now lacking leadership to steer this debate away from degenerating into small talk about all other issues that we deal with on daily basis. We have since gone past where scientists, governments and other self appointed authorities solely own sometimes misleading talking point on this issue.
The fact is – there is no one too powerful or too weak to act.
I’m with you on this Arthur. I really wished for the best, but in the back of my mind I thought this is what would happen and nothing productive would come of it. It isn’t over yet though, so I guess there is still room for hope.
Thanks Patti,
My point is, everyone now thinks this issue belongs to summits, scientists, governments etc. This is the best way to make the people of the world pass the buck and fail to act. We are being enjoyed here by guys going to toss wine in copenhagen and making fun of reality.
There are many things we could ask. For instance why is commerce and industry dominating our lives? There are so many substandard goods – cars full of plastics that can hardly last a year just to keep mamoth factories running spewing poison into atmosphere due to stimulated stupid demand by us. Everyone is involved in this small, absurd game. We have trillion economies while we are actually destroying our home planet. People in less developed countries think its time to escape the consequences of destroyed natural habitat just because some dumb scientists are telling us that everything is okay. It isn’t ok since in my lifetime I have seen the situation worsen; I don’t need an expert to tell me what I can see with naked eyes.
Now my monitor is full of tea droplets. No sooner have they convinced me that we are at the cliff edge, that one bucket of soot laced CO2 is a bucket too many, then they begin to argue about who has been at it longer – that those who haven’t polluted as much should be allowed to “catch up” while the others reduce to such an extent as to make it all even again. 7+3 = 10 so lets make 4+6 = 10. Problem solved – 10 is still 10. Hang on though didn’t someone say that climate change has ALREADY begun? That the sum should equal 5.
Hi Krupta
You seem to be saying: “Just another opportunity to fleece rich countries,” but it should be conditional.
• Reduce population growth.
• Make an effort to employ the millions.
• Make an effort at good governance.
• Try to encourage agriculture.
Hey! I think you don’t have the slightest idea of who’s fleecing whom. You seem to me another one who having got to the west on one pretext or another now is calling the kettle black.
Nobody in the world has fleeced the rest of this planet as much as the west, ever! If today the developing world is contributing to world pollution it’s to cater to the west’s greed and gluttony. The Western countries have conveniently palmed of their polluting industries to the developing world in the name of out-sourcing. Nobody, I repeat, nobody has the right to blame the poor and exploited developing world for polluting this planet. For really they have been exploited enough throughout the ages by the west. First through religion, then colonialism and now through so called science and progress. Enough is enough ! It’s no wonder that groups like Al Qaida are revolting. I assure you that this is only the beginning. I say to the Western world watch out and change your ways. For such behaviour can not go on for ever, even if its through ignorance.
~Good point, developing countries are catering to demand from the west, which increases CO2 output, etc., so any solution should also include lowering the demand in the west, either by developing cleaner technologies, which will take some time, or taking measures to reduce demand, reducing waste, and changes in our lifestyles, which could be done more immediately.
Do you and/or any others suggest that Western capital, manufacturing plants and industry be pulled from developing and poorer countries in order to reduce the carbon emissions in those countries? They can then keep the greed, gluttony and pollution at home, and even get to fleece their own.
I would like to see people in the North American and Europe be required to make their emissions per person equal to the emissions of India per person. That would help with climate change.
@ Kevin PE- Question, are a lot of the local people employed at those western manufacturing plants? I like what you suggest, but I wonder if people would get mad at losing their jobs.
Patti – Exactly. The city where I live, Port Elizabeth is motor car manufacturing reliant.
If western companies pulled out we could just as well turn off the lights.
Prosperity pollutes. At least with the current technology. That is changing. Are you suggesting we give up on trying to develop practical technologies and return to past levels of prosperity?
Prosperity is one thing, extreme greed and gluttony is another. I have lived on both sides of the line almost halves of my life to have seen it clearly. Technology is an excuse, what goes in must come out. Even solar power and wind energy needs a lot of effort and money and that doesn’t come pollution free. Besides making the planet ugly having wind mills and solar panels in the country side instead of harmonious trees. But trees take time to grow, in spite of being the most efficient solar collectors. No instant solutions there.
Perhaps the west can learn from the developing countries how to live a more meaningful, less wasteful and frugal life. Material progress is important but it’s not all.
I found the debate yesterday about what to call the debaters pretty humorous. The answer is fairly simple though: Hell! we’re all deniers. Hot and cold water running from taps, glaciers and fires without mess in the kitchen, throw-away everything, anything out-of-season we wish to eat most any time, journeys faster and farther than those of which we are personally capable – these were never rights; they were always and still are acquisitions – and the developing nations want them too! The good news is that everyone could have them essentially in perpetuity; the bad news is that in a hundred years almost no one will have them. And the answer is again simple: This will be a lost opportunity to forsake the nation state in favor of global unity. We will not solve the current, trivial climate disputes and thus will fail to gain the experience of global cooperation for its direction against less cooperative threats. You folks should get out more, heat balance isn’t the only global cycle we’re over-running.
g
I think climate change politics should be tied to GDP rather than per capita usage.
USA and China are worlds largest polluters but their contribution to the world economy is huge because they also the have the higest GDP.
Hence, if emission were tied to every $ worth of GDP generated by participating countries, that would be more fair.
This will allow developing countries to grow, increase their GDP but the restrictions will allow them to do it in a responsible way and also force the developed nations to reduce their emissions.
To make this work they should pick the country with the lowest GDP/emission ratio and use it as a basis or model that everyone else needs to follow.
Tying emissions to population is actually a benefit to populous nations. Countries like Canada and USA have a lot to loose.
Climate change regulations should not hamper growth and development.
It’s complete nonsense to expect continuous growth in a finite system. Sooner or later it all grinds to a halt or worse. It’s a bit like being on a life raft. You cannot increase the amount of food and water you consume every day and expect it to last. In fact, if you read books about people surviving in a life raft you should notice a common theme: survival depends upon rationing carefully, the resources you have on board and not by increasing consumption.
Most, if not all economies operate on the complete fantasy that growth is sustainable. A child of three could tell you it’s not, and yet we still all participate in this fantasy.
No wonder we’re all going down the toilet.
It’s not like that bunch of crazy dictators spent the previous round of aid on limousines, private jets and pointless wars… Oh wait, they did!
Well, let’s give em the money anyway, anything goes as long as it makes us feel good about ourselves.
I know how we can cut back CO2 emissions by a lot. Just stop our factories from producing medicines and consumer goods destined for Africa, and stop buying African oil as well, I’m sure they’ll thank us for that!
The samegoes for the Island States where SUV’s are abundant, SUV’s that don’t come from some magical happy place…
I am still sceptical about climate change but having said that where ever they are and whatever the circumstances the poor will always suffer at the hands of the rich. The delgates at Copenhagen are all rich. Is there a coutry anywhere in the world that actually looks after it’s poor? I do agree that world poppulation should be reduced but how? Nature will eventually supply a method.
Can your experts kindly tell us what they think the developed world sees or thinks abouts Africa.We in Africa know that our CO2 emission level is very very negligible and arguably insignificant. Even that, most of our giant minning and manufacturing companies are owned by foreigners from these so-called developed countries. They exploit our forest and mineral recources and pollute our environments. This is what’s happening in Ghana for example. Despite this insignificant CO2 percentage, Africa isn’t shielded from the catastrophic effects of Climate Change. Arguably, we’re the most affected by the effects of climate change. The developed world must pay for this and should not see it as they are quenching Africa’s thirst or hunger. They started it and they must stop it. African leaders must sound this clear to them.
I said,a few days ago,that I thought that the Copenhagen Summit would agree to disagree.I did think that.Now having read all of Krupa,s recomendations,I am certain of it.There will be as much joy out of Copenhagen as there was out of Kyoto.
Kevin PE,you owe me a tea bag,because I spilt my tea when I read your post.
it looks like it’s back to capitalism again. Both the problem and the solution. Politics are pretty much useless. People want low cost to buy and operate. That means more efficiency or less pollution. Poor countries seem to say they want inefficient products like the rich had. We offer better designs and processes, and they want cash.
The only part of this that is not meaningless is to stop mass consumption. The economy is helping that. But there is no law that will help. I would still like to know how much of climate change is due to nature and how much is man. Here is an interesting thought. If we could to some degree accurately predict climate patterns, when unfavorable patterns naturally occurred somewhere, how loudly would the victims scream secret manipulation and demand compensation?
As a skeptic of virtually all international agreements, I,as a resident of a Caribbean Country, is seeing a direct parallel to how World Trade is being negociated. The Rich Counties wants to set the Agenda, write the Rules,and give themselves the advantage. Of Course, at the expense of Poor Countries. Then we call this an “International Agreement.”
The Talks should be two-pronged.
1) The Rich Countries who put most of the rubbish in the atmosphere should do the most to clean it up
2) The fastest growing developing countries (population or economic) should also take steps to measurably curb their rate of increase.
The sharing of climate change prevention technology should be encouraged.
These should be simultaneous efforts.
Otherwise, Let’s just continue to enjoy our Category 5 hurricanes, our Tornadoes, and other Climate related Disasters.
Some people in the West are ever so well versed in reciting “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” It verges on obsessive behavior.
One simple fact is that the economic downturn in the US affected a huge amount of other global economies, including those of developing nations. That being the case, it is not a stretch to understand that many economies depend on healthy production in the US, and that this comes at the cost of energy conversion and consequent emission of CO2 (the natural byproduct of PERFECT combustion). Yes, greater efficiencies must be pursued, bla bla bla. We know this.
Another fact is that just China and India alone, two countries out of almost 200 countries, account for 1/3 of the world’s population. Therefore, if these two countries allow themselves to sneeze, everyone will catch a cold.
A third fact is that CO2 generated by the US and all other countries, industialized or not, amounts to a very tiny percentage of CO2 exchanged daily in this planet’s ecosystem.
So yes, I’m afraid that Copenhagen is becoming a forum for creating more entitlement programs. But then again, I had already poredicted same.
Not so, the rich are getting richer whilst the poor are getting poorer, regardless of climate change.
Well, we are asking the poor and underpriveledged to remain in poverty for the sake of the planet, while the rich (who created the problem) can remain rich and priveledged. That is a hard pill to swallow.
How are we asking this? I thought that at most, the West wa asking the developing nations to implement greener technologies now being invented, as they industrialize, so as not to pollute the planet even more.
Are we interested in a cleaner environment, or are we only interested in rhetoric? If we are interested in obtaining RESULTS, these can only be achieved if all industries cleaning up their acts. Otherwise, obviously, the few that do clean up their act will be totally swamped by the majority who find excuses not to.
What good would that do?
Industrialisation is the West’s idea of progress not everybody else’s. Though the west has tried to manipulate the govt’s. of the rest of the world it is so. We can’t eat tinsel and plastic. Just because the west lives in environments that are not so condusive to nature doesn’t mean every body else does. Even there they are trying to destroy nature with GM technology. They want to sell their tasteless food to the developing world while they take away their best just because they have money to pay for it. Having seen both sides of the coin, I know that the west is literally stealing the food from the mouths of the hungry. How much of this rubbish should the developing countries take? Now the west blames them of polluting the environment that they themselves have literally raped and are still doing so.
the poor are not hiding behind the rich when it comes to climate change, but they are hoping to profit from it. I would.
I don’t think this climate conference will reach any resolution .
This conference is not supposed to be about the rich country or the poor country. This is about the climate change that is taking place in the world. If the climate change starts to show its effect it will not see rich or poor. It is going to effect the whole world. And its effect have already started to show weather anyone believe it or not ,and we human are to blame for it.
“At the end of the climate change”
when we are not able to stop it or repare:
There will be total- justice-:
-no more riche people
-no more poor people
-no more people
I don’t believe the worlds poor are hiding behind anyone or anything. They are the poor, they’re just trying to make it from day to day. Their corrupt, oppressive leaders are hiding behind their Al Gore masks, facing in the general direction of Copehagen with their hands out, waiting for billions of dollars to drop in. As they most certainly will if the treaty is eventually signed and ratified.
It is ridiculous to claim the poor are hiding behind the rich. The rich have grown rich through exploiting people, planet, resources, while the poor continue to bear the burden of the externalisation of wealth. Climate change is already affecting Africa – it is not a vague theory, it is a reality with increased water insecurity, disrupted weather patterns – droughts in Kenya, floods in Mozambique, not just for a year or two but almost continuously over the past decade. Despite attempting to adapt, as Ethiopian farmers did after the severe droughts of the 70s and 80s, things are now worse than ever.
If anything it is the rich hiding behind the poor, not the other way around.
And the developing world is not asking for the developed world for handouts, merely to narrow the obscene gap that most of the commentators to this column fail to see from their privileged perspectives. It is not asking the poor to remain in poverty, it is asking the wealthy to acknowledge the imbalance in the ability to deal with the causes. If a man has nothing, what can you take from him? If a man has everything, what can he offer?
Some of the poor diont even know whats going on.
Other developing nations like China and India might have understood a bit but are more interested in telling the rich: We want to become rich, too, and dont care about climate change if the rich ones also dont care.
Countries like the USA seem to be looking only to the edge of their plate, only worried about the NOW with China and India behaving like little children: “If they can we also want”
WE ALL have to do something about climate change. A single country alone cant do anything except being a good example for the others.
The issue of climate change has reached to a point where it not relevant to lay blime at the door of the poor or the rich for hiding behind any of the stakeholders.
This is all about the effect this climate change will have on our lives and the generations to come. I wish our leaders at Copenhagan, would see reasons and put their past defferencies or interest aside and come to one accord for sustainable solution to the issue of climate change. Be it rich or poor we are living in this one world and therefore eventhough we disagree on some issues, but let us find a common ground where we can work together for success. Remember time is no more on our side.
Absolutely! Iagree with you, but right now I am famished, I haven’t eaten for two days. Would you please buy me a simple meal of rice gruell, I’ll be your servant and do whatever you tell me after that.
More often than not, the rich nations became rich by plundering the resources and at the expense of the poor. Their average single citizen consumes up to 80 times as much energy daily compared to that in the underdeveloped and developing countries.
Curbing the carbon emissions would mean curbing the extravagant consumption of energy of the rich. Could anyone be so naive as to believe that they would accept the change willingly overnight?
The world has always been unfair. It will continue to be.
(btt1943)
Why then the Hypocricy? Do they really believe the rest of the world is as dumb?
This is such a silly debate. The fact is that it is only the richer developed countries that have the technological know-how and capital to aid developing and poorer countries shift to cleaner energies. The offshore manufacturing and mining sectors in developing countries are essential factors in those countries economies and will be compelled to conform to cleaner technologies by their parent companies subject to international agreement.
The biggest polluters in poorer countries are and will continue to be those sectors which are not properly regulated and usually belong to dictators, their family and cronies, who unfortunately will pocket most every bean in aid, succeeding every time in stroking the Western guilt trip.
In 2002 the African Union itself determined that $150 billion “disappeared” in Africa each year, with 80-90% of it leaving the continent (presumably for places like Switzerland.)
The people that “relocate” this public money to their own foreign bank accounts are the same people who are now demanding money in Copenhagen.
Nuff said
Climate Change Programme Chicago.
ChicagO has accomplished a great deal.
An example of one of the reasons this is such a divided issue was the
way in which the BBC asked questions about Chicago coal plants being in poor neighborhoods. This finger pointing and blame with shallow information on the part of the interviewer is reactionary and will continue the fight mode on tjis issue.
The plants have been there for several decades. They were not parked in poor neighborhoods. Many lower income people LIVE near manufacturing because they do not have automobiles. I am one. Look at the big picture please before you interview.BBC please
keep the standards high as you have and not reactionary. Thank you.
I just hope that some of the countries who have decided to help the developing world through financial aid to help them to reduce their environmental pollution will also take care to monitor where that money really goes and not into the pockets of the corrupt politicians pockets of those countries.
Instead of just projecting to the media that they are doing the right thing. The west needs to do the right thing for money isn’t enough there has to be human effort to back it.
so we are putting our faith in human being to solve this problem, let me just say human being are the most selfish, self interest, greedy animal in this world. there is no one else out there to solve this problem except us so the world is doom
The poor third world nations and their people seem to have an “you owe me” attitude. They champion socialistic causes (this being one of them) as a means to get something for nothing. The level of corruption is massive, and the it is no secret that the U.N. and its socialistic supporters will do anything to further their objectives of redistribution of wealth and social order / governance.
The old saying is very true… ‘You give a man a fish and he will be back tomorrow for another; teach a man to fish and they will be beholding to you.’
So many countries are quick to demonize the US and it’s policies but they are quick to expect the United States to pay for security, climate change or some other social aid.
It’s easy to focus on the wealthier part of the population but there are millions of Americans who are barely able to survive. Adult children have moved back into housing with parents or the other way round. Employees work two full time jobs and still need food stamps. Elderly people are forced to choose between eating and getting medical care.
Should America offer to help out in world concerns? – yes. Should America be ordered to give & give & give and yet be demonized?- no!
It’s magnanimous of Rich Nations to offer billions of dollars to Poor nations to help them Save Climate Change.
We all know of how greedy politicians pocket government money.
More so in poor countries. The temptation is too huge.
Remember billions stashed away by Gen Suharto and his sons in Indonesia, Gen Abu Bacha of Nigeria, the Bofour scandal of India and so on.
The donor nations should set up a strict institution to supervise how money is not misused in every country that is given funds for saving earth.
We ask for open and good governance for all nations to prevent crooked and corrupt politicians stealing government money.
Patti. Why are the Western car plants not based in the West anymore?
Bert. I’m right with you. This is the 21st century of the Breton Woods agreement. The agenda is essentially a racist one and, set by The West.
Judy. On a per capita basis and, removing all military/military advisory aid from the calculation; U.S. foreign aid is pretty poor compared to that from the rest of the G20.
The poorer countries are well within ther rights to demand that the powerful ones take responsibility for their behaviour. Yet what has Obama consistently said? I will do WHATEVER it takes to protect the American people. And since most of his advisors are from large corporations, what kind of input will he be getting?
I would LOVE to see US politicians take a massive pay cut & send that money to some sort of a “Benevolent Bank” that everyone could use to help those in need. The main problem is that it is the taxpayers that are being sucked dry in order to fund government’s whims. “Cash for Clunkers” didn’t work because those who have cars that pollute the most can’t afford to buy a new car even with a couple of thousand dollars from the government.
Until the US Government finds a way to actually help it’s poor, it will not have the support of the majority of it’s citizens to send money elsewhere.
Judy, you say :
”I would LOVE to see US politicians take a massive pay cut & send that money to some sort of a “Benevolent Bank” that everyone could use to help those in need.”
and admit it would never work.
Every democratic country has in its consitution a clause to ”Recall” elected representative. We are aware of 1000s of dirty politicians. How many of them were recalled in all history ? None.
Why not have in place modern methods of communications to:
1… Instruct politicians towards legislating particular bills;
2… Guide them towards particular ideas, like Stem Cell Research, Climate Change;
3… Get them to be recognized as professionals just as Doctors, Accountants;
So that society could have a close look at their activities of grabbing unearned income like the British MPs.